ThinkProgress Logo

Politics

GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter: The Federal Government Can’t Legislate Bike Paths Because They’re Unconstitutional

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, there is a radical strain of conservativism, dubbed “tentherism,” that invokes the Tenth Amendment to claim that a whole host of uncontroversial federal government programs — like Social Security and Medicare — are unconstitutional. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has even adopted this philosophy to claim that child labor laws are not permitted by the Constitution.

Now, in an interview with Streetsblog Capitol Hill, one radical conservative has declared yet another common public good to be unconstitutional: bike paths. In an interview about federal transporation issues, Streetsblog asked Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) about supporting legislation that would support things like bike trails. Hunter responded by saying that he doesn’t “think biking should fall under the federal purview of what the transportation committee is there for. If a state wants to do it, or local municipality, they can do whatever they want to. But no, because you have us mandating bike paths, you don’t want either.”

Streetsblog followed up by asking if he was okay with “mandating highways.” Hunter responded by saying that he doesn’t “see riding a bike the same as driving a car or flying an airplane” because “it’s more of a recreational thing“:

STREETSBLOG: I was just in an [Environment and Public Works] Committee hearing and there was some talk about the fact that some small amount of money in the [transportation] reauthorization historically gets used for things like bike trails. Some people think that’s waste; some people think biking is a mode of transportation. What do you think?

HUNTER: I don’t think biking should fall under the federal purview of what the Transportation Committee is there for. If a state wants to do it, or local municipality, they can do whatever they want to. But no, because then you have us mandating bike paths, which you don’t want either.

STREETSBLOG: But you’re OK with mandating highways?

HUNTER: Absolutely, yeah. Because that’s in the constitution. I don’t see riding a bike the same as driving a car or flying an airplane.

STREETSBLOG: How is it different?

HUNTER: I think it’s more of a recreational thing. That’s my opinion.

Hunter’s argument is puzzling. Neither highways nor bike paths are explicitly spelled out as government powers in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, both are justified by the General Welfare clause, which allows the government to “promote the general welfare” of the American people. Earlier in the interview, Hunter cited the postal clause of the Constitution as allowing for specific authorization for Congress to authorize certain forms of legislation. Yet this clause in question specifically cites the ability to fund “postal roads” — meaning that highways would not be considered, given that the postal service at the time obviously did not use automobiles, which would require highways.

And for the record, biking isn’t only “recreational.” In 2000, the Census found that nearly half a million Americans bike to work. In cities like Portland up to 4.4 percent of all commuter trips are made via bicycling. It’s likely that even more Americans would utilize bicycles if bike-friendly paths and lanes were expanded across the country. But that would hinge on legislators not falsely believing them to be unconstitutional like Hunter.

Yglesias

Basic Research in a Multipolar World

Kevin Drum writes about the role of government in fostering basic research:

It was the private sector that turned these inventions into multi-billion dollar businesses, but it was government that provided either the basic research, the initial market, or both. Acknowledging this isn’t an endorsement of socialism or tyranny or government run amok. It’s an acknowledgment of the reality of progress in the modern era. Obama was right to focus our attention on education, technology, and infrastructure in his State of the Union address, because that’s the seed corn that will provide long-term productivity growth for America and the world. But with apologies to Bill Clinton, if we’re really serious about out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building, this means accepting that the era of big government is far from over. When it comes to basic R&D and the infrastructure to exploit it, it’s only just just begun.

I’m kind of pessimistic about this. Basic science and R&D are risky long-term investments with substantial positive externalities. Consequently the private sector funds them at a sub-optimal rate, and the government can do a lot of good by ponying up the cash even if the research goals (“beat Russians to the Moon!”) are politicized, arbitrary, or even pointless. But for all the same reasons of externalities and spillovers that lead private firms to under-invest in basic research also apply to most governments. After all, they use the same technology in Canada as we have in the United States and the Bahamas didn’t get to be so much richer than China by having better science.

But for about 20-25 years after the end of World War II, the United States of America accounted for a gigantic share of world output. And if you restricted attention to the “free world,” our share was even bigger. So there wasn’t much possibility of free riding. What’s more, fostering catch-up growth in Japan and Western Europe was a key US foreign policy objective, so we were actually happy with free riding. The political economy of the near future looks a good deal different. The leading economies (US, EU, China) will each account for less than a third of total output, meaning most of the benefit of any basic research you fund will flow to foreigners. It’s a situation in which the best way to “win the future” may be to let someone else do the hard work.

Alyssa

We Both Go Down Together

Oh, you guys, I’m going to have to start caring about the Decemberists again:

I once cared about the Decemberists passionately. They’re one of the few bands that I’ve seen in concerts more than once. I actually won a review-writing contest based on one of those shows—it was one of the first adult pieces of criticism I wrote that got published. I think I may have cared about them too much, let the band get too entangled with the precise emotional contours of specific parts of my life. And maybe the band’s baroque preciousness got to me a bit, too.

I think the Decemberists are one of the best bands at writing musical myths. And I think country influences might actually serve those stories better than big, kludgy prog sounds did. Twang and clarity are good foundations for songs where the lyrics matter because they’re delivering plot points, and they summon up the wilderness and emotional adventurism that the Decemberists do well with. They’ve always struck me as slightly Dylanesque in their fascination with the American antique, in both its elegant and battered forms.

LGBT

Memos Reveal Pentagon Is Looking To Expedite Repeal Of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

The Department of Defense is moving to accelerate the process for certifying the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, two memos obtained by the Wonk Room reveal. Under the legislation passed by Congress last year, the policy prohibiting gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces cannot be lifted until 60 days after the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President certify that repeal does not undermine the goals of the military.

“The implementation of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is a milestone event for the Department,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates writes in one memo, in which he instructs Clifford Stanley, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to prepare a plan “to facilitate the timely and orderly realization” of certification by February 4, 2011. “This is not, however, a change that should be done incrementally,” he writes. “The steps leading to certification and the actual repeal must be accomplished across the entire Department at the same time, and consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.” Gates lays out six “guiding principles” for achieving repeal, which do not appear to include the establishment of a new nondiscrimination policy:

- All personnel will be treated with respect.
- No policy should be established that is solely based on on sexual orientation.
- Harassment or unlawful discrimination of any member of the Armed Forces for any reason will not be tolerated.
- Standards of personal and professional conduct will apply uniformly to all military personnel, regardless of sexual orientation.
- Implementation will be timely, deliberate, comprehensive, and consistent with the standards of readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
- Implementation standards will be consistent across all Services.”

The second memo from Stanley himself details the changes that will take effect once repeal is certified. These include: (1) all open investigations commenced under the DADT policy will be dismissed, (2) recruits will not be required to specify their sexual orientation, (3) discharged service members will be allowed to re-enlist and (4) the existing standards of conduct will apply to all servicemembers regardless of sexual orientation.

In response to concerns from conservative lawmakers and chaplains, the memo stipulates that “[t]here will be no changes regarding Service member exercise of religious beliefs, nor are there any changes to policies concerning the Chaplain Corps of the Military Departments and their duties. The Chaplain Corps’ First Amendment freedoms and their duty to care for all will not change.”

The memo also directly addresses personal privacy, noting that “the creating of separate bathroom facilities or living quarters based on sexual orientation is prohibited, and Commanders may not establish practices that physically segregate Service members according to sexual orientation.” Citing the restrictions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the memo says that there will be no changes “at this time” to eligibility standards for military benefits. Medical policies, duty assignments, and release from service commitments will also be left unchanged.

The memo concludes that once the ban is lifted, “The Department will not authorize compensation of any type, including retroactive full separation pay, for those previously separated ” under DADT.

Update

At a press conference about the implementation process, Gen. James Cartwright noted that the Pentagon believes that “moving along expeditiously is better than dragging it out.” He said certification could occur within a year unless something unexpected or unanticipated arises.


Update

,Stanley said that the Pentagon does not believe that it needs to establish a new non-discrimination policy and insisted that individuals would have a way to seek remedy if they are not treated equally.


Update

,Cartwright and Stanley were unsure how a member would be able to claim discrimination based on sexual orientation since it is not recognized as a “protected class.” They promised to follow up with the legal team.

Politics

Obama Ridicules Conservative Disinformation On Health Reform: ‘Granny Is Safe!’

The conservative campaign against President Obama’s health care reform law has been built around baseless distortions and fabrications about the policy, such as its mythical “death panels” that would “pull the plug on grandma,” the false claim that the law is “job killing,” and the equally false claim that the law will “explode the deficit.” President Obama has largely avoided taking on this disinformation directly, but in a speech today sponsored by the pro-reform Families USA, the president lambasted these conservative falsehoods, saying the fear mongering “just doesn’t match up to reality.” And noting that conservatives tried to claim the law is “granny-threatening,” Obama joked, “I can report that granny is safe!”:

OBAMA: Now as important as what is happening right now, is what isn’t happening right now. You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That’s how it’s been portrayed by opponents. But that just doesn’t match up toreality. [...]

And I can report that granny is safe! In fact, grandma’s Medicare is stronger than ever. And if she was one of the millions who fell into the donut hole last year, she’ll received a $250 check, or soon will, to help her afford her medicine, and a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs, as part of the affordable care act.

Watch it:

Conservatives are forced to resort to deception on health care because Americans overwhelming don’t want the Affordable Care Act repealed and favor most of its components. Meanwhile, Republicans have no clear plan to address health care on their own, should their doomed repeal bid actually succeed.

Economy

Senate Republicans Place Big Bank Apologist On Banking Committee

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Ian Milhiser noted yesterday that Senate Republicans put Sen. Mike “noun, verb, unconstitutional” Lee (R-UT) on the Judiciary Committee, despite his radical ignorance regarding constitutional matters. But that wasn’t the only committee assignment for which the GOP decided that fealty to ideology was more important that acknowledging reality.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) was one of the financial industry’s biggest apologists during November’s campaign, opposing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law while claiming that derivative deals were “non-risky,” even as they cost schools and cities all across the country (including many in Pennsylvania) millions of dollars. And Toomey has been totally unrepentant about his personal role in deregulating the financial industry.

In 2000, former Sen. Phil “mental recession” Gramm (R-TX) attached the Commodity Futures Modernization Act to an unrelated, 11,000 appropriations bill. The CFMA ensured that the growing market in over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, stayed entirely unregulated. Toomey — then a member of the House of Representatives — voted for that bill, and said that he would do it again, inaccurately claiming that the legislation “did absolutely nothing to cause the financial crisis.”

So, naturally, Republicans have seen fit to name Toomey to the Senate Banking Committee, which has oversight of the nation’s financial regulatory laws. The committee was instrumental in crafting Dodd-Frank.

Here’s what the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — which released its final report yesterday — had to say about the bill Toomey claims did nothing to bring about the financial crisis:

The CFMA effectively shielded OTC derivatives from virtually all regulation or oversight. Subsequently, other laws enabled the expansion of the market…The OTC derivatives market boomed. At year-end 2000, when the CFMA was passed, the notional amount of OTC derivatives outstanding globally was $95.2 trillion, and the gross market value was $3.2 trillion. In the seven and a half years from then until June 2008, when the market peaked, outstanding OTC derivatives increased more than sevenfold to a notional amount of $672.6 trillion; their gross market value was $20.3 trillion.

Ultimately, the FCIC concluded, derivatives “were at the center of the storm.” And yet, Republicans put someone on the Banking Committee who has said that he would go back and deregulate those instruments all over again if he could.

In the course of his career, Toomey’s collected almost $2.5 million from the finance industry. He was also the the president of the Wall Street front group Club for Growth from 2005-2009.

Yglesias

Fixing Gerrymandering

Jamelle Bouie sticks up for partisan gerrymanders and concludes:

Simply put: If the idea is to have bipartisan comity, then by all means, create evenly split havens for centrist politicians. But if the idea is to accurately represent people and their interests, then I don’t see why you wouldn’t want heavily gerrymandered districts.

I don’t quite think that’s right either. The main problem with gerrymandering-whining is that it’s super-unclear what it’s supposed to solve. Partisan polarization? What about the US Senate? Kay Hagan votes like Jeanne Shaheen, not like Richard Burr. And Shahien doesn’t vote like Judd Gregg.

Politics

Gov. Kasich To Black Lawmaker: ‘I Don’t Need Your People’

Delivering on his vision for a “new way,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) “is on pace to be the first governor since 1962 to have an entire Cabinet without any racial diversity.” Every one of his 22 full-time agency head appointments has been a white person. Only five are women. Dubbing diversity as “metrics that people tend to focus on,” Kasich said, “I can’t say I need to find somebody to fit this metric” because “it’s not the way I look at those things. I want the best possible team I can get.”

Yesterday, the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus held a press conference to express their waning patience with his dismissive attitude and “implore[] Kasich to make better strides to diversify his Cabinet.” But according to State Senator Nina Turner (D-OH), this time Kasich’s response was a bit more blunt. According to Turner, when the caucus offered him help in finding qualified minority applicants, Kasich told Turner, “I don’t need your people“:

TURNER: Today, in 2001, it feels more like 1811 in the state of Ohio under a governor who just does not get it. I want to read some of [Kasich's] quotes. He said, ‘I don’t look at things from that standpoint. It’s not the way I look at things. I want the best possible team I can get and hopefully we will be in a position that we are fully diverse as we go forward.” As we go forward, as we go along, by and by, someday. I remember Martin Luther King saying so eloquently that wait almost always means never. Through his actions and deeds, Governor Kasich has declared that Ohio is open for business, but if you are African-American you need not apply. If you are hispanic, you need not apply. If you are Asian-Indian, you need not apply. And Oh My God I have a few women but we don’t need many more, so for women, you need not apply.

And then to have the pure unadulterated gall to say that he can’t find anyone. In that same caucus meeting when I said to the governor “if you need help, we can help you” and he said, and I quote, “I don’t need your people.” Now as an African-American, I was kind of perplexed about “I don’t need your people.” I wasn’t quite sure whether or not he was referring to my ethnic group people or my people as in the 350,000 constituents I serve in this state that represent all ethnic groups, all religious groups. I didn’t understand what “I’m not going to hire your people” means.

Watch it:

Kasich is certainly not angling for an all-white cabinet. He did make offers to two African-Americans who declined to accept two separate Cabinet posts. And as Turner points out, it is not entirely clear who “your people” was referring to. Kasich’s spokesman confirmed that he made the comment but “insisted that he meant he was referring to Turner’s political party, not race.” But almost 20 percent of Ohio’s population is minority, and such a brazen dismissal of diversity — be it racial, gender, or political — betrays a worrisome disregard for a broad range of ideas, insight, and understanding in policy development which such diversity cultivates.

Unfortunately, Kasich’s ignorance is not limited to his cabinet. On top of likening cabinet diversity to “chasing quotas,” Kasich refused to attend the Cleveland Chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference’s 10th annual Martin Luther King Jr. Gala despite being in Cleveland the same day. He also eliminated “gender identity” in his extension of former Gov. Ted Strickland’s (D) executive order to protect state employees from discrimination based on “race, color, gender, national origin, military status, disability, age, genetic information, or sexual orientation.” And as for gender equality, Kasich offered the fact that he’s married to a woman and has two daughters as sufficient evidence of his commitment to diversity.

Should Kasich’s abysmal diversity standard continue to direct his decisions, his “new way” might lead Ohioans all the way back before the civil rights era. (HT: Plunderbund, Ohio Capitol Blog)

Alyssa

Now Put Your Hands Up

I’m having…mixed feelings about the early promos for Single Ladies, the new show that’s meant to be a black Sex and the City set in Atlanta:


VH1 TV Shows | Music Videos | Celebrity Photos | News & Gossip

This looks to me like a soap opera populated by the supporting characters in movies where Gabrielle Union or Sanaa Lathan are Uptight Black Ladies Who Just Need a Good Man, like the cartoon that is Real Housewives of Atlanta in comparison to their New York and Beverly Hills counterparts. And that honestly bothers me a little bit. Sex and the City has grown out of proportion to its gritty, honest, funny little beginnings, its characters are superheroes rather than really people. But I’m worried that the character on this show are going to be reduced rather than built up. Maybe I’m wrong to think of this as a pattern, and I’d love to see someone like Tyler, who watched The Game, weigh in. But it makes me a little anxious. I don’t want this show to be a joke.

Economy

Republicans Scuttle Obama Nominee For (Maybe) Wanting To Help Underwater Homeowners

underwaterLast week, I wondered whether Senate Republicans would continue to obstruct President Obama’s nominee to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) — North Carolina banking commissioner Joseph Smith — if he were renominated. The GOP ran out the clock on Smith’s nomination last session, but Obama had reportedly been leaning towards submitting Smith’s name for consideration again.

However, that won’t be happening because, as the Wall Street Journal reported, Smith has taken himself out of the running:

The Obama administration’s pick to run the agency that oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac doesn’t want to be renominated after his candidacy ran into strong Republican opposition, a White House official said Thursday…Mr. Smith faced resistance from Sen. Richard Shelby (R., Ala.), who suggested he would be “a tool of the administration.”

The Republicans’ concern with Smith is that he might have been sympathetic to allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — for which the FHFA acts as chief regulator — to write down mortgages for underwater homeowners (thus reducing the total amount owed on the mortgage, to better match the current value of the house). Smith has never publicly said that he supports such a move, but the Obama administration has been extolling its economic virtues.

At this point, it’s becoming quite clear that Republicans have no interest in addressing the ongoing foreclosure crisis, even though there were more than one million foreclosures last year and will likely be more than one million again this year. Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) said last week that federal foreclosure prevention efforts “need to stop.”

The Obama administration’s foreclosure prevention efforts have been lackluster, particularly the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), which suffers from design flaws that are blunting its effectiveness. But having Fannie and Freddie reduce payments for underwater homeowners would definitely help, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner explained:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a congressional panel on Thursday there “is a pretty good economic case for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to participate in those programs”…While writing down mortgage principal could lead to larger upfront costs, Mr. Geithner encouraged policymakers on Thursday to take a broader view. “If you do things that improve the odds that home prices will be higher in the future, that defaults will be lower in the future, then you can…reduce the overall losses to the taxpayer,” he said.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up